ADB_book_18 April.qxp - Himalayan Document Centre - icimod

Table 3.5: Loss of Lives and Property by Different Types of Disasters in Nepal in 2002Type of DisasterPeopleDeaths Missing InjuredAffectedFamiliesLivestockLossHousesDestroyedCattle ShedDestroyedEstimatedLoss(NRs ‘000)Floods andLandslides441 21 265 39,309 2,024 18,181 775 418,915Fire 11 0 6 1,387 100 1,604 37 94,739Epidemics 0 0 0 0 0 0Windstorm 3 0 227 70 45 4,847Hailstorm 0 0 0 0 0 7,000Lightning 3 0 16 12 2 1 0 63Earthquake 0 0 0 0 0 0Total 458 21 287 40,935 2,126 19,856 857 525,564Source: CBS (2004) Tables 5.19 –5.20.Table 3.6: Disaster Casualties 1995 -2002YearDeathsPeopleInjuredLivestockLossHomesDestroyedAffectedFamiliesLand Affected(ha)Estimated Loss(million NRs)1995 873 1,937 2,053 10,275 134,210 41,870 1,9331996 895 1,523 2,480 30,014 58,320 6,060 1,5791997 1,160 1,120 1,191 4,825 46,050 6,060 4101998 1,190 117 1,179 15,082 36,980 320 1,2301999 1,466 146 65 4,304 17,840 180 5092000 377 162 1,017 6,886 24,900 880 1,1412001 415 132 665 6,103 15,900 — 5262002 458 287 2,126 19,856 40,930 10,070 525— = not available, ha = hectareSource: CBS (2004) Tables 5.19 –5.20.2002, 458 deaths were attributed to different naturalcalamities with financial losses amounting to some$7 million (Table 3.5). The impacts are greater whenpeople have no opportunity to choose alternativelivelihoods or dwelling sites. In two earlier episodesin 1984 and 1993, 363 and 1,336 deaths of peoplewere caused by landslides and floods and financiallosses were incurred amounting to $1.9 million and$99.1 million (DPTC 1997).Nepal is highly vulnerable to droughts, floods,earthquakes, landslides, forest fires, storms andhailstorms, avalanches, glacial lake outburst floods,and the effects of global warming. Of the 75 districtsin the country, 49 are prone to floods and/orlandslides, 23 to fire, and one to wind storms. A totalof 64 out of 75 districts are prone to disasters of sometype according to the Department of Narcotics andDisaster Management. Many of these naturaldisasters cannot be stopped. However, to minimizethe human and other losses that are incurred, betterunderstanding of traditional coping mechanisms andtheir modification to suit present reality has becomean urgent necessity at the local, district, and nationallevels. The threats to very costly infrastructure arevery real and every known precaution is necessary.Even the practice of environmental impactassessment is quite recent and has a long way to go.Settlement and building guidelines should beproperly developed and enforced to improvepreparedness against earthquakes and floods. Thereis still no close monitoring of the different naturaldisasters, and without a proper understandingresponses will be limited in scope and content.BibliographyBarrow, C.J. 1991. Land Degradation: Development andBreakdown of Terrestrial Environments. London:Cambridge University Press.Biodiversity Profiles Project (BPP). 1995. Biodiversity Profileof the High Mountains and High Himal PhysiographicZones. Biodiversity Profile Project Publication No. 14,Kathmandu: His Majesty’s Government of Nepal,Department of National Parks and WildlifeConservationChapter 3: Land Resources and Land Degradation37